A warp drive to achieve faster-than-light travel -- a concept popularized in television's Star Trek -- may not be as unrealistic as once thought, scientists say.

A warp drive would manipulate space-time itself to move a starship, taking advantage of a loophole in the laws of physics that prevent anything from moving faster than light. A concept for a real-life warp drive was suggested in 1994 by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre, however subsequent calculations found that such a device would require prohibitive amounts of energy.

Now physicists say that adjustments can be made to the proposed warp drive that would enable it to run on significantly less energy, potentially bringing the idea back from the realm of science fiction into science.

this is poorly stated.there are no loopholes in the laws of physics.there is always, however, the possibility of the existence of complimentary or extrapolatory laws as yet undiscovered.

of course when dealing with theories, you can have any number of mutually exclusive loopholesand everyone is happy.

science writers constantly contribute to the dumbing-down of their readership by dumbing-down their articles.

wait.

Jules, don't get the idea that i think your article is dumb.i'm just nitpicking because i don't like sloppy thinking [the journo's, not yours].sloppy thinking, if done at all, should be done over the sink.

Yeah, physics, especially the speed of light, are pretty constant. So "loophole" probably isn't the best choice of words. I guess they have to dumb down the articles or us laypeople would never get the basic idea. I know I wouldn't! I'm an English major, I always need scientific things stated in ways my math-less brain can understand.

LMAO nahhh! I just can't read numbers very well. (Or graphs, or equations.) Sure makes dialing the phone and writing checks a challenge.

And physics stuff. I love all kinds of science, I just can't actually understand it unless it's put into words. For me, sometimes those ideas have to be dumbed way down, because I can't comprehend the most basic equations that make sense to everyone else.

Anyway, isn't the whole Schrödinger's cat business just another garden variety Gordian knot made ofMöbius strips?

It's like the infamous "glass half empty/half full" red herring.The answer depends on information that is withheldwhich implies that the answer will be found on the MENSA acceptance criteria examination.The vital evidence which is withheld iswhether or not the glass is IN A STATE of being emptied OR A STATE of being filled.And no, a glass being used in a still life is notexempted by reason of simple evaporation.

Don't use your brain for a door stopand you will be in a better position toresist the efforts of Others [yep, Them]to use your brain for nefarious schemes.

I can hear the n'er-do-well knucklessnapping like packing bubbles as we speak.

In the current issue of "Sophistry Quarterly Illustrated" Professor Curmudgeon Stew advances the following :"To grasp the bare bones fundamentals of time travel requires a conference Vulcan mind meld comprised ofat least three humans [not necessarily terran], seven Vulcans, Lieutenant Commanander Worf, one and a halfArcturians and at least four pan-galactic communications carriers. Even given these stringent protocols it isquite possible that during the course of the conference/meld as many as five of the participants will have died and/or disappeared and one hapless soul will have morphed into a mélange of Chewbacca and Waldo."

Professor Stew offered no theoretical framework for his clearly exhaustively researched assertions.In the spirit of fair play fostered by "Sophistry Quarterly Illustrated" all statements are assumedinnocent until proven guilty. The Professor was, naturally, properly Mirandized.

has it ever occurred to anyone that numbers are arbitrary?the base ten system is absolutely arbitrary.there is nothing inherent in base ten notation thatmakes it more efficient than any other base notation.

the referenced Stendahl quote :"Mathematics allows for no hypocrisy and no vagueness." is of course without merit.you may as well say "Words allow for no hypocrisy and no vagueness."if it is anything mathematics is an extension and expressive tool of logic to which all the laws of logic apply.one of the basic concepts of logic is that a line of reasoning must be 1 - internally consistent2 - externally consistent.both internal and external consistency have to do with the definition of terms.for example "if A = B and B = C, then A = C."IF mathematics is defined, as Stendahl does, as an inherently romantic notion,THEN Stendahl's deduction is true.however, since mathematics is only a human tool with no agency for action within itself,then it is wholly possible for mathematics-the-tool to be applied to a given set ofphenomena according to the precepts of a set of untrue definitions.romanticism is a scourge. sloppy thinking has always accompanied it.consider an apothegm attributed to Benjamin Disraeli by Mark Twain :"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

|||||

interesting PDF on "sloppy thinking" as a characteristic of the "firefighting mentality" in organizations. the Kepner-Trego PDF analyzes "firefighting mentality" as a passive coping technique rootedin a reactionary unwillingness to accept responsibilities associated withcreative adaptation. sounds like romanticism to me ...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum